Find Nearby Plumbers In Austin, Texas

Austin's Greatest Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, same-day or next-day service, clear communication, and courteous technicians — particularly Romie/Romeo. Project completion scores well overall, as most jobs were finished on-site and efficiently, though one notable negative review described a significant mess left behind under a sink, and another described a technician who refused to engage with the customer's request. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers called prices fair or reasonable, three separate reviews explicitly flagged costs as exorbitant or very high, which meaningfully drags this score down. Experience scores solidly based on multiple mentions of skilled diagnostics, quality workmanship, and problem-solving in challenging installs, with only minor detractors. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism, tempered by a recurring and credible pricing concern.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three independent reviews (1-star, 1-star equivalent complaint, and 4-star) explicitly flag high or exorbitant pricing. This is a consistent pattern across unrelated reviewers and should be treated as a credible signal, not an outlier.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One 2-star review describes a technician leaving sewage water and chemical residue inside a cabinet, contaminating medicine and toiletries. This is a specific, credible complaint about cleanup standards.
• ATTITUDE CONCERN: One 1-star review describes a technician who refused to listen to the customer and was inflexible. This is a specific behavioral complaint.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: 14 of 20 reviews have no date provided. Recency weighting could not be applied to these reviews. All dated reviews are from May 2025 and appear recent.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service. They came immediately and resolved my problem.'). While not conclusive of fake reviews, these add limited evidentiary weight and were treated conservatively in scoring.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with broad dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with awareness that 14 reviews lack dates, pricing complaints are a consistent and credible pattern, and a small number of brief generic reviews reduce the precision of positive signals.

A&D Backflow has a strong track record of responsiveness and availability during holidays and emergencies, which is a recurring and credible theme across multiple independent reviews. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 1-star review alleging rude behavior and an attempt to charge twice for the same service — a serious integrity concern that cannot be dismissed. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, though the negative review raises a specific allegation of attempted double-charging, which tempers confidence in this dimension. Project completion is solid, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and correctly, including same-day service and sourcing of parts without extra charges. Experience is consistently praised, with reviewers noting clear explanations, correct diagnoses, and effective repairs across a range of backflow and plumbing issues.

• One 1-star review (2020-11-19) contains a specific and credible allegation of attempted double-charging and rude attitude. The reviewer also states a second company tested the backflow the next day and it passed with no repairs needed, suggesting a possible dishonest upsell attempt. This is a significant integrity flag.
• One 3-star review (2024-03-20) is not usable for scoring — the reviewer explicitly states they never worked with A&D Backflow and used a different company instead. This review was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months as of mid-2025. Only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024-01-02 and 2024-03-20), and the 2024-03-20 review is non-usable. Recency of usable data is limited, which reduces confidence in current performance.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and specificity. The negative review adds credibility to the overall dataset.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability given the volume of detailed, specific reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the serious integrity allegation in the 1-star review and the limited recency of usable data within the past 12 months.

Plumb Doctors earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with dozens of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for being friendly, communicative, and thorough — particularly in after-hours and emergency situations where competitors were unavailable. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished on the same visit, though a meaningful cluster of reviews describes no-shows, missed appointments, and at least two cases of failed diagnoses where the problem was not resolved and the customer was still charged. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers found costs fair — especially for emergency or after-hours work — a significant number explicitly called out excessive markups, inconsistent estimates, and charges that felt disproportionate to the work performed, pulling this score down considerably. Technical experience is generally well-regarded, with multiple reviewers citing skilled problem-solving and knowledgeable technicians, but offset by a few notable failures where technicians arrived unprepared or lacked the expertise for the specific job. Overall, Plumb Doctors performs best as an emergency plumber with strong individual technicians, but reliability and pricing consistency are areas of legitimate concern.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 4 reviews (Jan 2024, Jun 2024, and others) describe no-shows, missed appointment windows, or complete failure to arrive — including one reviewer who waited an entire day with a burst pipe and no water. This is a material pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews flag dramatically different pricing experiences — from fair to exploitative. Specific complaints include: $378 to snake a kitchen sink, $451 to install an expansion tank, $895 for sonar leak detection (before any repair), and a $350 diagnostic fee charged after the customer was explicitly told there would be none. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices across technicians.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe technicians arriving unprepared, failing to diagnose the problem correctly, or recommending unnecessary replacements (e.g., $18,000 tunnel quote for a hair clog; $8,000 water heater replacement for a unit worth $1,300; technician who needed to call tech support to troubleshoot a tankless heater). These are significant experience-related failures.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The reviews are largely specific, name individual technicians, describe distinct scenarios, and span a wide date range. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected. However, the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great guys, great service') slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed fall within the past 3 years (2021–2024), with the majority from 2022–2024. No significant recency weighting adjustment required, though the no-show complaints are concentrated in early 2024, suggesting a possible recent decline in scheduling reliability.

This WW Score is based on 81 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions across all four categories, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of scheduling failures, pricing inconsistency, and occasional technician unpreparedness that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong professionalism and responsiveness ratings.

Plumber Near Me LLC earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and same-day availability. Experience and workmanship are frequently cited positively, with named technicians like Dewey, Casey, Aidan, and others receiving consistent praise for technical skill and clear explanations. However, pricing is a significant drag on the score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out quotes as extremely high, non-transparent, or unreasonable, and several negative reviews describe being charged for incomplete or no work. Project completion is also mixed — while most jobs are described as finished promptly, there are credible complaints about technicians not returning as promised, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and one instance of a repair that immediately leaked after completion. The combination of strong positive volume and a meaningful cluster of serious negative experiences produces a moderate-to-good but not excellent overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing replacement of a leaking outdoor hose bib (Casey, same-day service, 20-minute job) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-07-08. This is a copy-paste duplicate and one instance has been discounted.
• CLUSTER OF SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A large number of reviews (approximately 20+) share the exact date of 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10. While not all are identical in content, this clustering pattern is unusual and may indicate a coordinated review push or incentivized review campaign. Confidence in this subset is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE RECURRING AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025) explicitly cite overpricing, lack of transparency, or being charged for work not completed. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONMENT AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2024-07-02, 2023-08-17, 2025-05-10) describe the company failing to follow up, not returning as promised, or charging fees without completing work. This is a notable reliability concern.
• FAILED REPAIR REPORTED: One reviewer (2025-03-11) paid $570 for a PVC repair that leaked immediately upon water restoration, and the company was slow to honor the warranty callback.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2024-06-28) describes a technician named Adam behaving rudely, dismissively, and unprofessionally toward an elderly customer. This is an outlier but a serious one.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2019-02-13) alleges a technician named Shawn stole money and never returned a promised refund. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2023 and some predate 2021. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a mix of strong positives and notable negatives, suggesting performance may be inconsistent rather than uniformly improving.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, documented no-show and abandonment incidents, and the suspicious same-date review clustering before making a hiring decision.

Blue Ribbon receives strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising named technicians for punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, the pricing dimension is a significant drag on the overall score: multiple detailed negative reviews describe feeling overcharged, swindled, or subjected to high-pressure upselling tactics, including one reviewer who paid $530 for a 10-minute job and another who alleges years of unnecessary freon charges. Project completion is generally positive, with technicians frequently described as finishing jobs thoroughly, though one reviewer reported paying over $2,000 with no follow-up communication for 17+ days, and another experienced two consecutive missed appointment windows. The score is meaningfully tempered by credible, specific negative reviews that describe systemic pricing and communication failures, not just isolated incidents.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 15 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same date (e.g., the 'Joan turned up on time' review, 'Always courteous and professional', 'Frank and Kaden did a great job', 'Kaden was fantastic', 'Always a great experience', 'I didn't know what to expect', 'Noah was great', 'Spencer was awesome', 'Our technician was Madison', 'Brandon Shields arrived on time', 'We were very satisfied', 'Ray Smith did an excellent job', 'We had to have a light installed', 'Ezekiel was professional', 'Great worker fair pricing', 'A wonderful experience', 'He did a wonderful job', 'Ezekiel was a great technician', 'Beautiful service', 'Don't know about the service but their drivers', 'Brandon Shields was excellent', 'Adrian arrived in a timely manner', 'Ezekiel came out on time', 'Madison was personable', 'Madison was excellent', 'Your experienced technician', 'Casey did a great job', 'Appreciated their availability', 'Technician Casey was maybe the best', 'Very pleasant to have do the job', 'Positive experience. Only negative', 'Great company! They responded quickly', 'Madison was very prompt'). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or a platform duplication error. Confidence in the raw review count is reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (dated 2023-08-22) alleges a technician verbally abused the customer, damaged property, and filed a false police report. The reviewer states the company did not take responsibility. This is a severe flag regardless of its age.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SYSTEMIC: Multiple independent negative reviews (not duplicates) specifically describe pricing as excessive, non-transparent, or predatory. One reviewer paid $530 for a 10-minute repair; another alleges years of unnecessary freon charges confirmed as fraudulent by two independent companies. These are credible, specific, and corroborated.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least two independent reviews cite serious communication breakdowns — one customer paid over $2,000 and received no update for 17+ days; another experienced two missed appointment windows with no proactive contact.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are dated 2025-04-10 through 2025-06-08, which is within the past 12 months and therefore weighted normally. Several older reviews (2021, 2023) were included but given slightly lower weight. The serious misconduct review is from 2023 and may not reflect current operations, but was not dismissed.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several short reviews ('Always a great experience', 'He did a wonderful job', 'A wonderful experience', 'Very pleasant to have do the job') lack specifics and contribute minimally to scoring confidence.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for the professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions due to a large number of specific, named-technician reviews, but the pricing score and overall trustworthiness of the review pool are significantly undermined by confirmed duplicate reviews, credible allegations of overcharging, and one serious unresolved misconduct complaint.

Crow's Plumbing (operating also under the Local Plumbing Service brand historically) earns strong marks for responsiveness and same-day service, with dozens of reviewers praising prompt arrivals, friendly technicians, and thorough communication. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to return calls or texts — a serious and repeated complaint across multiple dated reviews spanning 2013 through 2024. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out grossly inflated quotes (one citing $630 for 30 minutes of diagnostics with no repair, another noting 111% markup over a competitor, and another flagging estimates always starting above $5,000), though a comparable number praised fair or reasonable pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion scores moderately well — most jobs described were finished — but several reviews document abandoned visits, rescheduled appointments without notice, and at least one case of damage caused and not remedied. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and knowledgeable technicians, though a few reviews cite incorrect diagnoses or subpar workmanship.

• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2013, 2019, 2021, 2024) describe no-shows, missed appointments, or technicians arriving hours late without communication. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING POLARIZATION: Pricing reviews are sharply divided — roughly half praise fair or competitive pricing while the other half describe significantly inflated quotes. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices or technician-level variability rather than a uniform pricing policy.
• BRAND/ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference at least two distinct business names — 'Crow's Plumbing Service' and 'Local Plumbing Service LLC' — with overlapping personnel names (Jack, Tory, Tim, Jonathan, Paul, etc.). These appear to be the same or closely related entities, but this ambiguity slightly reduces scoring confidence as some reviews may reflect different operational periods or ownership structures.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 20+) have no date attached. Among dated reviews, the oldest go back to 2009. Reviews from 2009–2017 may reflect a different operational era. More recent reviews (2022–2024) show both strong positives and notable negatives, suggesting current performance is mixed.
• DAMAGE COMPLAINT: One 1-star review (2023) describes property damage caused during an HVAC/plumbing install that the company refused to remedy, advising the homeowner to leave water-damaged drywall in place. This is a serious workmanship and customer service failure.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing or generic 5-star reviews without substance was detected. Review corpus appears authentic.

This WW Score of 74.2 is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be treated as a reasonably reliable representation of this contractor's performance — though prospective customers should be aware of documented appointment reliability issues and pricing inconsistency before booking.